Capital gains & income averaging.

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Supply side economics is Voodoo wishful thinking. Serious tax reduction will seriously reduce government’s tax revenue.

This was pretty much debunked under the Reagan administration, we had the longest sustained period of peacetime growth, and it revived our economy for nearly 30 years, and would probably still be working, if much of his policies hadn't been rescinded. Under Reagan, we had serious tax reduction, the top marginal rates were brought down from 50% to 28%. This sparked an enormous economic expansion, where jobs were created, new businesses and industries sprang up, and we came out of the Carter Malaise.

You are choosing to look at tax revenues in a static vacuum. This means, you are not considering any mitigating factors or how tax law might change the dynamics of the numbers, instead, you are assuming everything remains the same, and it doesn't. When we cut a tax rate, you assume that means $X less money in revenue, but the cutting of the tax frees up capital investment, which creates new jobs, which will be paying individual income taxes... in the end, cutting the rate actually produced MORE revenue in taxes. When you compare historic tax reductions revenue to GDP, we have always come out ahead by reducing the top marginal rates. The only exception to this in modern history, is the Bush tax cuts, which didn't end up producing more revenues, but then, they were across the board cuts, not just cuts to the top marginal rate. By spreading the cuts out across the vast middle class taxpayers, it ended up costing us in revenues, but it was politically more popular than just cutting the top marginal rate.

eliminating the taxes upon long term or all capital gains is a welfare program for the benefit of the wealthy.

Again.... Wealthy people do not NEED to earn income, they already have wealth. Reducing Cap Gains is an encouragement for some of these wealthy people to invest in capitalist economic ventures, which create jobs. Yes, the wealthy benefit by making more money, but what do wealthy people tend to do with their money? When they buy a yacht or cater a party, doesn't someone benefit? Isn't there some middle class worker who has a job polishing the yacht or baking cheese straws? Isn't there a bookkeeper or accountant, who has to keep up with the finances? It's impossible for a wealthy person to live a lavish lifestyle, without the support of hundreds who have jobs specifically to serve those needs. So we can be jealous of what rich people have all day long, the bottom line is, the rich people control the wealth, and to a large degree, the jobs and economic future of everyone else. It seems like idiots would want to treat them a little nicer.

 

[Supposn]

Let’s keep this civil.

...................... I think we should favor business models which, by design, create more jobs and wealth. In fact, it's kind of retarded for us to be bitching about no economic growth or investment, while contemplating how much to raise capital gains tax. What is ironic is, you have allowed your own greed and envy to justify this nonsense, which is killing jobs and the economy, but you claim to be combating greed. It's the equivalent of shooting holes in the boat to let some of the water out. ..........................

Dixie, it’s my opinion that people should favor business models which we reasonably believe would actually increase the GDP, median wage and numbers of full time jobs.
We should oppose further cutting or eliminating taxes upon long term capital gains if we believe such favoritism would be of little benefit and of net detriment to our nation’s economy.

I resent your presuming to attribute my opposing efforts to further reduce or eliminate taxes upon LTCGs as due to personal or my political allies’ envy. I don’t doubt that Romney is very knowledgeable of finance I also don’t doubt that much of his economic understanding is false. I have no good reason to question Romney’s or your patriotism or personal motives. No one has good reason to question mine.

Please let us keep this civil discourse civil.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Corporate gains

The argument against raising the capital gains tax (or for eliminating it altogether) is that the profit has already been taxed at the corporate level. This position is understandable.................................

General Burnside, you didn’t state if the argument that the reduced tax rate for capital gains income is justified due to the profit having been already taxed at the corporate level is YOUR argument.

Capital gains are individuals' sales profits. Unless a corporation distributes something of value and the distribution’s done after taxes have been paid, (i.e. post taxed distribution), there cannot be capital gains due to sales of items that were previously taxed at the corporate level.

Corporations are not eager to pay taxes upon anything prior to their distributing the item.

Respectfully, supposn

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, it’s my opinion that people should favor business models which we reasonably believe would actually increase the GDP, median wage and numbers of full time jobs.
We should oppose further cutting or eliminating taxes upon long term capital gains if we believe such favoritism would be of little benefit and of net detriment to our nation’s economy.

I resent your presuming to attribute my opposing efforts to further reduce or eliminate taxes upon LTCGs as due to personal or my political allies’ envy. I don’t doubt that Romney is very knowledgeable of finance I also don’t doubt that much of his economic understanding is false. I have no good reason to question Romney’s or your patriotism or personal motives. No one has good reason to question mine.

Please let us keep this civil discourse civil.

Respectfully, Supposn

There is nothing uncivil about what I stated. You can "believe" something will work, will create GDP, jobs... by not cutting or eliminating taxes on the use of capital, but the results speak for themselves, as we can see by the past 3 years of exactly what this policy yields. Your problem is, you know that I am absolutely right, and you have no argument, therefore you are using the 'fight or flight' technique by insinuating that I have become uncivil in my discourse.

I'm sorry, but I have to question your motives. Why would you want to take actions which further restrict the options of capitalists? Do tell?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Capital gains are individuals' sales profits. Unless a corporation distributes something of value and the distribution’s done after taxes have been paid, (i.e. post taxed distribution), there cannot be capital gains due to sales of items that were previously taxed at the corporate level.

Corporations are not eager to pay taxes upon anything prior to their distributing the item.

Respectfully, supposn

You are only seeing one aspect of capital gains taxation. Whenever someone takes a large sum of money out of security investment, it is a capital gain and subject to the tax on a capital gain. BOOM... 15% of the transaction is gone when the money comes out of bonds or securities. THEN, any subsequent profit from the usage of the capital, is subject to capital gains, or in some cases, corporate rates. The money has already been taxed, but the usage of the money in making money, is also taxed. But the big drag is created in making it less attractive for an investor to justify. Why pay all the taxes? Why not let them continue to pay you? Even thought the rates go lower and lower, it is still much less risky and burdensome.

This is what needs to change, the people with 'capital wealth' need to be enthused, ecstatic about the prospects of the future and their chance to turn a profit... but we've vilified profit and success... we've told them in no uncertain terms, that the government is entitled to sink their claws into as big of a slice of pie as they want, and there is nothing they can do about it. And what we are seeing as a result, is whether Wealthy People are smarter than Government People.

 

[Supposn]

Taxing capital gains.

.........................Personally, I feel eliminating the corporate tax would solve this dilemma rather quickly. The corporate income tax gives credence to the idea that a corporation is a "person," and taxing the shareholders directly makes a ton more sense anyway.

General Burnside, if individuals’ tax rates exceed businesses’, individual entrepreneurs and executives will show little incomes “on the books” but they’ll live very well upon their expense accounts.

If income’s taxed, we should tax both individuals’ and commercial incomes and tax their maximum rates should be similar.

///////////////////////////////////////

A corporation being a “person” was what Romney’s said at one moment. Some other moment when he believes it’s to his advantage, he’ll say otherwise.
No sensible person believes, (Romney doesn’t really believe) a corporation is a person.

Romney behaves as if our time of cell phones, lap tops and instant pictures with sound wasn’t happening. He forgets and says whatever he believes his audience of the moment wishes to hear. He may be nominated but he will not be elected.

A corporation being person was never an issue and can never earn credence. The Supreme Court’s decision (which many of us disagree with), was entirely based upon free speech.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Long term capital gains.

You are only seeing one aspect of capital gains taxation. Whenever someone takes a large sum of money out of security investment, it is a capital gain and subject to the tax on a capital gain. BOOM... 15% of the transaction is gone when the money comes out of bonds or securities. THEN, any subsequent profit from the usage of the capital, is subject to capital gains, or in some cases, corporate rates. The money has already been taxed, but the usage of the money in making money, is also taxed. But the big drag is created in making it less attractive for an investor to justify. Why pay all the taxes? Why not let them continue to pay you? Even thought the rates go lower and lower, it is still much less risky and burdensome.

This is what needs to change, the people with 'capital wealth' need to be enthused, ecstatic about the prospects of the future and their chance to turn a profit... but we've vilified profit and success... we've told them in no uncertain terms, that the government is entitled to sink their claws into as big of a slice of pie as they want, and there is nothing they can do about it. And what we are seeing as a result, is whether Wealthy People are smarter than Government People.

Dixie, a capital gain is NOT “Whenever someone takes a large sum of money out of security investment”; it is an individual’s sales profit.

Only long term capital gains, (LTCG) are taxed at the highly reduced tax rate.
LTCG are individuals’ profits derived from the sales of items owned by the sellers for no less than an entire year prior to the date of sales and are not items of stock-in-trade.
There are NO OTHER than these afore mentioned qualifications for LTCG profits.

If a corporation distributed items AFTER corporate income taxes have been levied, (i.e. POST TAXED items are distributed), then it can be said that the corporate taxes have been paid upon the distributed items. It is possible for receipients to sell such items and those sales would be capital gains. That has to be a rare occurrence. Corporations prefer to not distribute post taxed items.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

you know that I am absolutely right?

There is nothing uncivil about what I stated. You can "believe" something will work, will create GDP, jobs... by not cutting or eliminating taxes on the use of capital, but the results speak for themselves, as we can see by the past 3 years of exactly what this policy yields. Your problem is, you know that I am absolutely right, and you have no argument, therefore you are using the 'fight or flight' technique by insinuating that I have become uncivil in my discourse.

I'm sorry, but I have to question your motives. Why would you want to take actions which further restrict the options of capitalists? Do tell?

you know that I am absolutely right


Dixie, it’s possible but rare that anything is certainly known within a social study, (social science is a misnomer). It is difficult enough to determine the truth with certainty within the physical sciences. There are comparatively fewer axioms within social studies.

So few things in social studies “speak for themselves” because the inter-relationships of social studies factors are generally so much more varied, complex and beyond strict laboratory control.

You have accused me of advocating national policies that I know to be inferior to what you advocate. You continued to do it within the message that I’m now responding too. You don’t recognize that you’re accusing me of acting unpatriotically?

You infer your presumption that something you haven’t specified has occurred in the past three years, the results speak for themselves and your interpretation of all of this is the only certain and correct interpretation. In regard to whatever it is you’re referring to, you’re apparently presuming a great deal.

You go on to explicitly presume to know my problem, that you’re absolutely correct and I know you to be absolutely correct, that I’m incapable of responding to your assertions of something but you haven’t specified what, and therefore I’m employing a (political?) technique that you haven’t explained.

I’m an opponent of a tax reduction applicable primarily to a slice of our wealthier investors and I‘m an advocate of replacing it with a tax reduction applicable to a much broader range of incomers including the wealthy segment of our population.

Furthermore the proposal’s applicable to taxpayers that perform many more functions within many more industries.
Your response to this is to ask why I wish to restrict capitalists

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, a capital gain is NOT “Whenever someone takes a large sum of money out of security investment”; it is an individual’s sales profit.

Tell ya what... go try taking $100 million out of bonds and putting it in your checking account, and see if Uncle Sam doesn't send you a 1099 on your lump sum distribution? Whenever the money ceases to be protected as a security investment, it becomes a capital gain distribution, and subject to capital gains tax. It is because of this taxation, that most wealthy investors have chosen to play it safe and leave their money in security investments. You want to keep this tax or raise it higher, I want to lower it or eliminate it. My way will generate tens of thousands of new jobs and economic stimulation... your way? Well, we see the results of your way, look at the past 3 years?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I’m an opponent of a tax reduction applicable primarily to a slice of our wealthier investors and I‘m an advocate of replacing it with a tax reduction applicable to a much broader range of incomers including the wealthy segment of our population.

See... here is the problem with that position... Only the wealthy are paying any substantial amount in taxes. 48% of us pay no income tax at all, and another 22% actually gain money they didn't even pay in! The wealthiest 5% pay about 70% of all taxes, the top 25% pay about 90% of the taxes... the WEALTHY are the only people paying substantial tax! Whenever tax rates are lowered, the left immediately screams "tax breaks for the rich" but when the rich are the only ones who pay taxes, it stands to reason.

What you advocate is the Bush Tax Plan! He lowered taxes for all brackets, including the wealthy. Now, this was fine, it certainly helped the economy and created jobs, but the overall effect of lowering tax rates across the board, results in an actual decrease in revenue instead of an increase. You see, when we lower the rate on top earners, they tend to invest more and take risks, in hopes of greater profits. When we lower the tax rate on a middle class family, they may buy a new refrigerator or go on vacation, so the net result we get, doesn't include new jobs and new companies opening, and therefore, no increase in overall revenue. Lower taxes for "the rich" results in more business and jobs, which produces a substantial increase in overall tax revenues collected... lowering taxes on the middle class, doesn't.

The only way we can increase revenue AND lower tax rates across the board, is to broaden the tax base... increase the number of people who actually pay tax. We can decrease the rate and lower the threshold for taxpaying, and this would increase revenues... it's kind of what Reagan did.

 

[Supposn]

Tell ya what... go try taking $100 million out of bonds and putting it in your checking account, and see if Uncle Sam doesn't send you a 1099 on your lump sum distribution? Whenever the money ceases to be protected as a security investment, it becomes a capital gain distribution, and subject to capital gains tax. It is because of this taxation, that most wealthy investors have chosen to play it safe and leave their money in security investments. You want to keep this tax or raise it higher, I want to
lower it or eliminate it. My way will generate tens of thousands of new jobs and economic stimulation... your way? Well, we see the results of your way, look at the past 3 years?

Dixie, you’ve apparently adopted the Romney style of discussion or debate. Your message from the very beginning is an extremely unrealistic scenario that in this particular case is also very much inaccurate.

An enterprise is required to fill out and provide IRS 1099 forms to generally almost every recipient of their distributed wealth.

It’s conceivable that some of the amounts reported upon 1099s are actually CG amounts but almost all such reported amounts are not CG profit amounts.

I’ve never given this question any thought before but my initial thought is the vast majority of such reported distributions cannot be CG profits because they do not reflect recipients expenses incurred to acquire the reported distributions of wealth; (i.e. the 1099 form reports receiver’s gross rather than net receipt of revenues and it does not report upon the recipients’ capital gains).

I know your contention, “Whenever the money ceases to be protected as a security investment, it becomes a capital gain distribution, and subject to capital gains tax” is false.
I question your contention, “It is because of this taxation that most wealthy investors have chosen to play it safe and leave their money in security investments”.

I know historically, higher taxes induced investors to accept GREATER risks.
Then as now, highly competent and expensive professionals could substantially reduce taxable incomes and investors then believed if they acquired more wealth, it could be arranged that they’d keep a good portion of what they acquired.

You’re correct; I do advocate eliminating the reduced tax rates granted for commercial long term capital gains, (LTCG). The reduced tax does not much benefit middle income investors but it is of benefit to wealthier investors. LTCG incomes are of no greater than any other incomes benefits to our economy. It should be taxed at an ordinary rate.

I am not opposed to replacing the tax reduction for LTCG with a rewrite of the prior existing Income Averaging tax provisions that mitigated progressive tax rate’s excesses when applied to the filing’s year’s taxable income. This tax reduction rewarded but was not limited to wealthy investors or those that sold their homes. It benefitted lottery or quiz program winners, sport or entertainment figures, inventors or anyone else that hit ANY KIND of financial jackpot within the taxable year for which they were filing an income tax return. It compensated those who were lucky or daring or devoted years for study or practice of their chosen professions.
It was of no particular benefit to those with comparatively level annual incomes; (such as a Buffett or Romney or your mailman).

You wrote that your way ‘will “Generate tens of thousands of new jobs and economic stimulation”. The LTCG tax reduction doesn’t contribute anything to our nation’s GDP or median wage. What’s your way and how will it improve anything?

You also made reference to my way and we’ll see the results of my way. Has congress passed something that I’m unaware of? What do you see happened in the last 3 years except Republicans hindering any attempts for economic recovery?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

The Income Averaging hasn't yet been rewritten.

See... here is the problem with that position... Only the wealthy are paying any substantial amount in taxes. 48% of us pay no income tax at all, and another 22% actually gain money they didn't even pay in! The wealthiest 5% pay about 70% of all taxes, the top 25% pay about 90% of the taxes... the WEALTHY are the only people paying substantial tax! Whenever tax rates are lowered, the left immediately screams "tax breaks for the rich" but when the rich are the only ones who pay taxes, it stands to reason....................

Dixie, you’re making assumptions not based upon facts. The Income Averaging, (IA) tax provisions haven’t been rewritten and you’re presuming to know the tax revenue differences between reduced rates for long term capital gains, (LTCG) incomes and a rewritten (IA) tax provision.

I know that the qualifications for a taxpayer to evoke (IA) is dependent upon a number of factors. The taxable income must be no less that minimum required increase from the prior year. We haven’t written that minimum proportion, or the number of years to be averaged. There are also the tax bracket’s rates to be considered.

[The LTCG tax reductions now decrease tax revenues and increase our federal debt. Regardless of what you contend they contribute nothing to our GDP or median wage or numbers of jobs].

Within our progressive income tax system, persons with erratic' annual incomes suffer financial harm. Evoking (IA) tax provisions greatly mitigates their financial harm due to progressive tax rates. Eliminating progressive rates is finasncialy and politicaly difficult.

I’m a proponent for shifting our major tax sources from taxing net incomes to a general sales tax. To be prudent, the shift should be accomplished within incremental steps. Within each step our income tax rates will be reduced and our general sales tax will be increased simultaneously.
I believe after some step, the sales tax rate will approach an unacceptable sales tax rate. At that point we will have a hybrid system. Everyone pays sales taxes and the wealthiest segments of our population also pay progressive income taxes.
If I’m wrong, income taxes will be completely replaced by a general sales tax.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

[The LTCG tax reductions now decrease tax revenues and increase our federal debt. Regardless of what you contend they contribute nothing to our GDP or median wage or numbers of jobs].

You keep asserting this, but the facts don't bear it out. First of all, you can't calculate how many jobs might be created if there is less tax on capital investment. There is no way to calculate an unknown quantity. It is a fact that some amount of economic growth and prosperity will result, it always has before. It's also most definite, that if you raise tax on investment capital, there will likely be less of it. We know this by past history as well.

Again.... We want to create an environment where Mr. Investor is enthused and excited about taking his money out of securities and bonds, and putting it into the expansion of capitalist venture. This will create jobs, many, many, jobs. Each of those jobs will be contributing to the income tax revenue stream. The end result is, you have increased the amount of tax revenue by employing more people, who in turn, pay taxes. In addition to this, these new taxpayers also have incomes to purchase homes, cars, tv's, washers and dryers, and other consumer goods. As these products fly off the shelves, even more jobs are created to restock shelves with product, and then... jobs are created to make more product, to transport the products to the store so they can be stocked... those jobs pay income which is also taxed... those people spend their money on consumer goods... and it all goes round and round from there. It begins by declaring a cease fire in the War on The Rich, and understanding that wealthy investors and financiers are what ultimately drive our consumer-based capitalistic economy.

 

[Supposn]

Language matters.

You keep asserting this, but the facts don't bear it out. First of all, you can't calculate how many jobs might be created if there is less tax on capital investment. There is no way to calculate an unknown quantity. It is a fact that some amount of economic growth and prosperity will result, it always has before. It's also most definite, that if you raise tax on investment capital, there will likely be less of it. We know this by past history as well..................................

Dixie, I tried to teach my chiidren that language matters. One of my children still some times fails to get it.

Because the English referred to electronic values and Americans referred to electronic tubes, English children grew up with a generally superior knowledge of the component’s function. Such a little difference, (a word) resulted in a much more different outcome.

Although we describe something as a “capital gains tax”:
(1) It is NOT a tax; it is a reduction from the income bracket’s ordinary tax.
(2) The tax base is NOT upon a gain of capital; it’s a tax upon incomes due from individual’s sale’s profits.
(3) I’m unaware of any government taxing their investor’s invested capital.

Income due to Long term capital gain, (LTCG) is taxed at the reduced tax rate, the LTCG rate.
LTCG income is NOT more than any other incomes induced to be invested or re-invested.
The LTCG rate does NOT induce increased investments.

LTCG reduced tax rate reduces tax revenue more than otherwise. Anything that reduces tax revenue also increases the federal debt.

LTCG tax rates to some extent may affect investment choices or the decisions to sell or hold portions of enterprises. A government policy that chooses winners and losers should always be treated as suspect.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Anything that reduces tax revenue also increases the federal debt.

And increasing capital gains or corporate tax rates will result in reduced revenue. As time goes by, we also see revenue continues to decline, as fewer and fewer have jobs. This downward spiral will continue until pro-market initiatives take place and create enthusiasm again with capital investment.

So tell me, what's next after this idea fails? More regulations? Government takeovers? Wealth and Private Property Confiscation? Eventually, you don't have enough people earning income and paying taxes, to continue functioning. What then? You see, eventually... sooner or later, someone will gain enough political power to unbridle capitalism a little, and the lumbering capitalist giant will awaken. Until then, we can all sit back and listen to you 'smart' people tell us how we need to do it, while we watch it all go to shit.

 

[Supposn]

Language matters.

You keep asserting this, but the facts don't bear it out. First of all, you can't calculate how many jobs might be created if there is less tax on capital investment. There is no way to calculate an unknown quantity. It is a fact that some amount of economic growth and prosperity will result, it always has before. It's also most definite, that if you raise tax on investment capital, there will likely be less of it. We know this by past history as well..........................................

 
Language matters.

Dixie, again language matters.
Economists differentiate between “investment” and “transfers of wealth”.

Investments are factored into and contribute to the nations' GDPs.
Investment is the purchase or dedication of resources for the benefit of an enterprise.

Purchase of stocks or bonds are transfer of wealth unless the items purchased are IPOs.
Transfer of wealth are NOT factored into their nations’ GDPs and they do not create jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

 
Language matters.

Dixie, again language matters.
Economists differentiate between “investment” and “transfers of wealth”.

Investments are factored into and contribute to the nations' GDPs.
Investment is the purchase or dedication of resources for the benefit of an enterprise.

Purchase of stocks or bonds are transfer of wealth unless the items purchased are IPOs.
Transfer of wealth are NOT factored into their nations’ GDPs and they do not create jobs.

Respectfully, Supposn

Again, you have no way of knowing the unknown. You can't say how many jobs or economic stimulation MIGHT occur, when less restriction on capital exists, you can only speculate that this would be a positive benefit. There is no logic which indicates more restriction would create more capital investment.

 

[Supposn]

Restriction on capital?

Again, you have no way of knowing the unknown. You can't say how many jobs or economic stimulation MIGHT occur, when less restriction on capital exists, you can only speculate that this would be a positive benefit. There is no logic which indicates more restriction would create more capital investment.

Dixie, long term capital gains, (i.e. LTCG) are individuals’ net profits derived from the sales of items continuously owned by the individual for no less than a year prior to the date of sale.

Tax treatment favoring a single income source has replaced markets’ judgments with that of the government. There is no logical reason to believe that individuals’ LTCG incomes are more economically beneficial (than any other) individuals’ incomes. Tax treatment favoring a single income source has replaced markets’ judgments with that of the government. This is more characteristic of a socialist rather than a capitalist economy.

What “capital”, “restriction on capital” and “more restriction” are you referring to?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Dixie, long term capital gains, (i.e. LTCG) are individuals’ net profits derived from the sales of items continuously owned by the individual for no less than a year prior to the date of sale.

Tax treatment favoring a single income source has replaced markets’ judgments with that of the government. There is no logical reason to believe that individuals’ LTCG incomes are more economically beneficial (than any other) individuals’ incomes. Tax treatment favoring a single income source has replaced markets’ judgments with that of the government. This is more characteristic of a socialist rather than a capitalist economy.

What “capital”, “restriction on capital” and “more restriction” are you referring to?

Respectfully, Supposn

You continue to be completely oblivious to the fact that as soon as money is taken from a tax-free security investment, it becomes a 'capital gain asset' and is subject to a 15% tax, right then and there. If it happens to be tax-deferred investment, an additional income tax is also assessed. It is because of this, investors are making the choice to not invest in capital ventures, to keep their wealth invested in securities and tax-free bonds and such. The capital gains tax reaches far more than simple LTCG portfolios, which really aren't significant in the scheme of things. The way the markets have declined lately, great profits on long term capital gains hasn't been all so great anyway. If I had the time to bother with finding the actual amount of tax revenue the IRS received last year from profit on LTCG, we could get a huge laugh at how much of a drop in the bucket it is, in terms of our debt problem.

The growth of economy depends on growth of commerce, expansion of capitalist venture. This doesn't happen in the current environment, that is obvious to everyone now. The question has always been, what to do about that? And to a certain degree, one could argue, there isn't much government CAN do. The biggest thing they can do, is get out of the way and let capitalism work. Reduce or eliminate capital gains tax, so that people who control massive amounts of wealth, aren't afraid to take it out of security and invest it into the economy.

What you, and most liberals, seem to have done, is allowed your jealousy for people who make profit, get in the way of common sense. People making money, being successful, having more than others.... that's what makes the world go around, creates jobs for everyone, fosters confidence in the market, and everything else. If people are restricted from being successful and making profits, we can expect quite the opposite to happen, which is what is happening now.

 

[Supposn]

Income Averaging

Dixie, I consider myself as a populist but I have no objection to being described as a liberal. It’s not as if I were being described as something disgraceful. You didn’t accuse me of being a Republican or a Tea Partyist.

I thought that I concealed my jealousy by advocating the re-enactment of income tax averaging provisions within our tax regulations. I did write that those provisions “compensated those who were lucky or daring or devote years for study or practice of their chosen professions”. I advocate elimination of the long term capital gains loophole and restoring the income averaging, My jealousy of Warren Buffett, Mitt Romney and my mailman couldn’t remain hidden.

Dixie when I advocated elimination of the long term capital gains loophole and restoring the income averaging, did it occur to you that I believed that would be to our nation’s better interest?

I don’t know why this response is so late. I don’t lose E-mails so I’m supposing I didn’t receive notice of your message.

Respectfully, Supposn